Gov. Lynch gets it right on “right-to-work”

After the flood of corporate donations we saw in the last election, it’s no surprise that state legislators across the country are attempting to pass so-called “right-to-work” laws—making it harder for workers to join together in a union  and putting more money in the pockets of CEOs.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire State House jumped on the unionbusting bandwagon, passing a controversial “right to work” bill with a 221-131 vote. But Gov. John Lynch has made it clear that he’s going to stand with the middle class on this one—assuring New Hampshire’s working families that he’ll veto the bill.

From the 22 states that currently have right-to-work laws on the books, we know the serious threat that such legislation  poses to workers—and their communities. In fact, workers earn over $5,000 less in right-to-work states than in non-right-to-work states. In this economy, that’s money working families need more than ever to achieve middle class security and boost local economies.

Fortunately, it looks like that’s not a loss New Hampshire workers will have to endure anytime soon. Let’s hope that decision makers nationwide follow Gov. Lynch’s lead and focus on the issues that matter to middle class families: creating jobs and rebuilding the economy.

FacebookGoogle ReaderTumblrDiggDeliciousShare
This entry was posted on Thursday, February 17th, 2011 at 6:39 pm and is filed under General, Jobs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Gov. Lynch gets it right on “right-to-work””

  1. SBB says:

    How has it come to be?
    A single governor may be the only single person between thousands represented by unions, and the power of the conservative right to blame all of the world’s problems on middle income public workers and the Democrats.
    What happened to a working House of Representatives, Congress and the NLRB?
    The only thing the undereducated public seems to get right at election time, is to support the party that has been less represented in the last period of time. If only to say they do not approve of the current status, this voting pattern manages to keep some balance of power between different political philosophies.

Leave a Reply